Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 16 163292 NNY 24 OZ

5 Becky Cheung Crt; 6 Becky Cheung Crt; 7 Becky Cheung Crt; 8 Becky Cheung Crt; 9 Becky Cheung Crt; 10 Becky Cheung Crt; 11 Becky Cheung Crt; 12 Becky Cheung Crt; 15 Becky Cheung Crt; 16 Becky Cheung Crt; 162 Cummer Ave; 164 Cummer Ave; 166 Cummer Ave; 168 Cummer Ave; 170 Cummer Ave; 200 Cummer Ave

Ward 18 · Lily ChengDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 27 May 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 5 Becky Cheung Crt; 6 Becky Cheung Crt; 7 Becky Cheung Crt; 8 Becky Cheung Crt; 9 Becky Cheung Crt; 10 Becky Cheung Crt; 11 Becky Cheung Crt; 12 Becky Cheung Crt; 15 Becky Cheung Crt; 16 Becky Cheung Crt; 162 Cummer Ave; 164 Cummer Ave; 166 Cummer Ave; 168 Cummer Ave; 170 Cummer Ave; 200 Cummer Ave
Ward: Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
Submitted: 27 May 2016
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page

Description

Proposed 14-lot plan of subdivision (single detached dwellings). Plan of Subdivision also submitted (16 163295 NNY 24 SB).

Linked lobbying registrations

No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

None.

Comparison with similar applications

Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 18

38 lobbied · 63 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=7
Matched, unlobbied100% n=3

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied21%
Matched, unlobbied15%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

Lobbied1,925
Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=64
Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

Lobbied13%
Matched, unlobbied13%

Data table· 4 rows

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 18: 38 lobbied and 63 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	38	—	100% (n=7)	0%	21%	0.00
Matched, unlobbied	63	—	100% (n=3)	0%	15%	0.04

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	573	1,925	100% (n=64)	0%	13%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	763	1,793	98% (n=70)	2%	13%	0.05

Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.

Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.